Muslims feared like sociopaths

This past Monday, Theodore Dalrymple (the pen name of Dr. Anthony Daniels) wrote an insightful article in the Wall Street Journal about how Muslims are treated in the UK.

An excerpt:

One obvious thing to do would be to strangle the foreign funding of so much Islamist activity in Britain. That is no doubt complicated in many ways, but no British government, solicitous of trade relations, has dared even try. The British economy is precarious, and it is difficult to be strong when your economy is weak.

Instead, we have gone in for what a Dutch friend of mine calls “creative appeasement.” Authorities make concessions even before, one suspects, there have been any demands for them. Thus, a public library in Birmingham, one of the largest known to me, has installed women-only tables, a euphemism for Muslim women only. Whether there was ever a request or demand for sex-segregated seating from Muslims is probably undiscoverable; truth seldom emerges from a public authority. But the justification would almost certainly be that without such tables, Muslim women would not be able to use the library at all.

The Birmingham airport has set aside a room for wudu, the Muslim ablutions before prayer. No other religion is catered for in this fashion (nor should they be, in my opinion), so the impression is inevitably given that Islam is in some way favored or privileged. Again, it would be difficult to find out whether they received requests or demands for such a room or merely anticipated them; in either case, weakness is advertised.

This is not a local problem alone. Many European airports now set aside a room for “meditation.” The icon used to indicate it almost always carries more of an Islamic connotation than any other. A friend told me that when she went into one such room, she was told by a Muslim to remove her shoes, ecumenism being, of course, a one-way street.

My female Muslim patients who had grown up in Britain told me that the school inspectors had never intervened when their parents prevented them from attending school, often for years. On the other hand, white working-class parents were bullied by those inspectors when their refractory 15-year-old daughters refused to go. A few years ago it came to light that police in Rotherham had for decades systematically turned a blind eye to the mass sexual abuse of children—at least 1,400 victims—by Muslim men. This type of willful neglect by the authorities came as no surprise to me. On the contrary, it is precisely what I would have expected.

From all this the terrorists surely draw a great deal of comfort. It gives them the impression of living in a weak society that will be easy to destroy, so that their acts are not in the least nihilistic or pointless, as is often claimed. They perceive ours as a candle-and-teddy-bear society (albeit mysteriously endowed with technological prowess): We kill, you light candles. The other day I passed a teddy-bear shop, that is to say a shop that sold nothing but teddy bears. I am sure that terrorism is good for business, but the teddy bears are more reassuring for the terrorists than for those who buy them to place on the site of the latest outrage.

Another source of comfort for terrorists is that after every new atrocity, the police are able to arrest multiple suspected accomplices. That suggests the police knew the attackers’ identities in advance but did nothing—in other words, that most of the time terrorists can act with impunity even if known. Here, then, is further evidence of a society that will not defend itself seriously. This is not just a British problem. The April murder of a policeman on the Champs Elysées in Paris was committed by a man who had already tried to kill three policemen, who was known to have become fanaticized, and who was found with vicious weapons in his home. The authorities waited patiently until he struck.

(I wish I could write that elegantly.)

But I quote Dalrymple not to showcase his prose but to show the numerous ways in which British (and other sovereign) authorities appease, mollify, coddle, and generally tiptoe around Muslims. 

I've written before about how whenever you hear of a "reality distortion field" or the Stockholm Syndrome, that almost always means a sociopath is lurking. Sociopaths often manipulate through the use of fear: non-sociopaths instinctively sense that if they cross the sociopath in any way, the retribution they could expect would be completely uninhibited in its ferocity. 

So, normal people will do anything to avoid a sociopath's wrath, and find themselves acceding to his version of reality. 

This is pretty much exactly what's going on with Muslims in the West these days. The West bends over backwards to appease them, simply because they fear their wrath. You could say the West is suffering from collective Stockholm Syndrome.

The double standard is apparent in the way the parents of 15-year-old Christian truants were treated compared to the parents of Muslim girls. In the way the Rotherham rapes were swept under the rug. And in the way, as Dalrymple points out, that ecumenicism is a one way street. 

Piss off a Christian, and he'll write an angry letter to the editor. Piss off a Muslim, and he'll blow himself up along with 20 young girls at an Ariana Grande concert. 

(Somehow I can't see Dalrymple writing that paragraph.)

The takeaway is, the West is operating from fear and impotence. They are both paralyzed by political correctness and intimidated in the face of fiercer aggression. 

In fact, the West is so afraid of being offensive it won't even mount a decent defense.

The same way most people feel and act around sociopaths.